Supreme Court’s ‘History’ Test Sparks Second Amendment Confusion

It means the end of gun control…given there was none in the decades of and after the Founding. Private people could and did own cannons, mortars, and what we'd call now grenade launchers. In fact, those were still permitted (below 40mm) until recently when the ATF just out of nowhere broke with all historical tradition and known law, and made it illegal to own grenades (non-lethal rounds, smoke, tear gas, flash bang). This is relying on the same reasoning as their other changes without law, banning bump stocks and forced reset triggers, binary triggers, and of course the one that just got reversed, the pistol braces. All of this relies on the idea the bureaucrats get deference on such changes, and the courts can't review it via fact-finding to determine if such moves are rational, correct, effective, or even a violation of rights. There is a case over fishing in SCOTUS right now which is likely to overturn the reasoning used in every one of these gun cases, so they are all likely to be overturned (and some have already).

It turns out, you can't just make up whatever meaning you want to words in a contract, or it's void, because it means nothing. It's either go by the contract, Amend it, or void the whole thing…but you aren't going change the meaning of words to fit whatever you want, and hold us to that contract. Reason prevailed, and so, the contract stands. We'll see how long it lasts, given the climate of people trying to just redefine words in contracts to suit their authoritarian impulses over others, especially when it's over some irrational and disproportionate fear of something which is a tiny threat to life, versus risks we accept daily which are much higher, and we have almost no fear of at all. Perhaps check your cowardice, phobias, etc., and not try to take our rights. Thanks.